Gary Lee Beavers v. Officer Hosey

No. 1:21-cv-00650-HBK (PC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2025) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · October 30, 2025 · No. 1:21-cv-00650-HBK (PC)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants in part and denies in part Gary Lee Beavers’s motion to compel discovery in his Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect action against Officer Hosey. The court orders production of certain documents concerning prior failure-to-protect investigations and records related to the underlying assault, subject to redactions, while denying or limiting other discovery requests and resetting the dispositive-motion deadline to December 15, 2025.

Holdings

  1. A motion to compel must identify not only the relevance of the requested discovery but also why the opposing party's response or objections are deficient; the moving party bears the burden of showing actual and substantial prejudice from the denial of discovery.
  2. A party cannot be compelled under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 to create a new document or compile information into a document that does not already exist.
  3. A party invoking the qualified official-information privilege must make a substantial threshold showing, supported by a sufficiently specific declaration, that disclosure would threaten concrete governmental or privacy interests; conclusory and speculative assertions are insufficient.
  4. Confidentiality alone does not exempt relevant, proportional, nonprivileged discovery from production; appropriate redactions may adequately protect privacy and security interests.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff established a basis under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to compel further responses to eleven document requests.
  2. Whether Defendant established the official-information privilege or other privilege sufficient to withhold documents concerning investigations or discipline related to alleged failure-to-protect conduct.
  3. Whether Defendant could be compelled to create documents or lists that did not already exist.
  4. Whether responsive confidential documents should be produced subject to redactions or other protective measures.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (26)

  • Compass Bank v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, 104 F. Supp. 3d 1040, 1051 (S.D. Cal. 2015)(followed)
  • Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • Hasan v. Johnson, 2012 WL 569370, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2012)(followed)
  • Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 511 F.2d 192, 197-98 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394 (1976)(followed)
  • Edwards v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 2009 WL 4707996, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2009)(followed)
  • Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 661, 669-70 (N.D. Cal. 1987)(followed)
  • Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 613-16 (N.D. Cal. 1995)(followed)
  • Tornay v. United States, 840 F.2d 1424, 1426 (9th Cir. 1988)(followed)
  • In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Christ v. Blackwell, 2011 WL 3847165, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2011)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 26.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…